Nokia Officially Lists Patents Google's VP8 Allegedly Infringes 180
An anonymous reader writes "Google just settled video codec patent claims with MPEG LA and its VP8 format, which it wants to be elevated to an Internet standard, already faces the next round of patent infringement allegations. Nokia submitted an IPR declaration to the Internet Engineering Task Force listing 64 issued patents and 22 pending patent applications it believes are essential to VP8. To add insult to injury, Nokia's declaration to the IETF says NO to royalty-free licensing and also NO to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing. Nokia reserves the right to sue over VP8 and to seek sales bans without necessarily negotiating a license deal. Two of the 86 declared IPRs are already being asserted in Mannheim, Germany, where Nokia is suing HTC in numerous patent infringement cases. A first VP8-related trial took place on March 8 and the next one is scheduled for June 14. In related Nokia-Google patent news, the Finns are trying to obtain a U.S. import ban against HTC to force it to disable tethering (or, more likely, to pay up)."
I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe then, the US Congress will finally take notice and do something serious about patent reform.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the FUD strategy has been to never list the patents. If you actually do have patents there is no good reason not to list them. One of the big problems with software patents is exactly that they can be so broad that working around them is actually impossible.
Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc (Score:4, Insightful)
This is still a FUD-filled article.
If you look at the list, the 86 patents turn out to be just a few basic concepts, with each patent obtained in multiple jurisdictions.
It appears Florian Muller is preparing to resume his old SCO role as Microsoft-sponsored pundit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22890&cid=2463249 [slashdot.org]
See my journal for +4 redundant and offtopic links as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You're half right. Moderating as troll knocks off points (back to 4).
This reply is also partly to undo the moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes this is exactly what I tought, here we go again, what's next ? bankrupcy like SCO. So bad for this ex-glory !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To add to the confusion, they have no relationship other than the name to the MPEG itsself. They are called MPEG LA because they were first formed to pool patents related to the MPEG standard.
Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc (Score:5, Insightful)
patent infringement is an almost certainty.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I am "anyone who follows codecs" and I'm not as sure of this as you are.
A lot of patents are very narrow. Many of the famous software patents, like One-Click, are disturbingly broad, but many of the patents related to video compression are narrow. The VP8 strategy, as I understand it, was to study the patents and make sure that everything in VP8 was just different enough that it doesn't infringe.
This means that VP8 is an inferior codec compared to H.264; some of the patented techniques really are better. However, it should be a "good enough" codec for most purposes.
Their "work around" was to give identical technologies different names and put their fingers into their ears screaming "LA LA LA LA LA" denying any patent infringement.
-1, flamebait.
When they realized this wasn't going to work, Google finally licensed the patents from MPEG LA.
I don't purport to have a secret pipeline into Google management and be able to tell what they were thinking. Do you have such a secret pipeline?
An equally workable summary is: Google had an opportunity to throw a few dollars at MPEG-LA and end the FUD forever, and they did so. Even if Google was convinced they could win on the merits in court, it was worth something to just make the problems vanish.
Note that Google specifically has not agreed that there was any patent infringement:
Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030241/google-licenses-video-codec-from-mpeg-la-to-bolster-vp8.html [pcworld.com]
P.S. I am somewhat bemused by your tone. It seems you are eager to see VP8 get shackled by patents... why is that? Are you so certain that Google is a bad actor here that you just want to see Google get punished? Or do you hate freedom, or what exactly?
Please for one moment stipulate that VP8 contains technologies that are just enough different from the patents that they don't infringe... would you still have a problem with VP8 in that case?
MPEG-LA has claimed that it is impossible to make a video codec without infringing patents, because all the fundamental technologies are patented... is this, in your opinion, a good situation?
I'm personally cheering for Google in all this. They spent over $100 million to buy On2, just so they could set VP8 free. As far as I can tell, they did this for two reasons:
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that VP8's inferior isn't a foregone conclusion based on what it doesn't infringe upon. Really? You actually believe that tripe?
The only way one can determine if it's an inferior or superior codec is on the quantitative and qualitative results of the compression- and pretty much nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also some of these patents are probably too broad and would be invalidated. But its a lot of em and a lot of time money to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, we'd just have more sock-puppets. At least this way we've got a really good clue about which posts are probably shallow (or outright inflammatory).
(Disclaimer, I do use AC from time to time, but not for trolling.)
Re: (Score:2)
In 2013? Seriously? Do you know just how easy it is to do a cookie white-list?
Re: (Score:2)
Rooting for software patents, or the ones asserting them, only keeps the barriers to entry in place for FLOSS projects and small businesses.
Unless you are a shareholder of the patent-asserting company, or in its payroll, it doesn't make any sense to defend them.
Re: (Score:2)
I want a reliable, high quality, widely available video standard. Through patents and the MPEG-LA, we have just that. Without patents, we'd have a mess. That's what sense it makes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc (Score:4, Interesting)
The more interesting (though not entirely surprising) bit from this news is that MPEG LA might not actually own all the patents required for H.264 to work.
In which case it might be in MPEG LA's interest to work to invalidate the patents.
Re: (Score:2)
No, VP8 *is* infringing, H.264 "might be". That's a huge difference. Taking on Google over WebM is easy, taking on the MPEG-LA will be a tall order indeed. That's another huge difference.
Seriously, if you're going to use a video coded, you might as well go with the safer bet, especially when that safer bet is superior in quality, directly supported in silicon all over the world, and the dominant format on the Internet.
You're sort of right with this, though:
you may as well go for the cheapist option.
Yes, you may as well go for H.264. Supporting WebM
Re: (Score:2)
If I was the only person saying that, then you might have a point. Even Google has admitted this implicitly.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think the US congress cares about anything but the oodles of money they got from MAFIAA ??
Re: (Score:2)
This is a patent issue, not copyright. They are indebted to their corporate masters, but different ones. The US is still home to many of the tech industry giants (Intel, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc) - and strong patent laws at home and around the world make sure those industry giants stay giant, rather than being displaced by upstarts from competing countries. Similar situation in drug development. It's basic economic protectionism, and every government does it to some extent. It's only common sense to prote
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe then, the US Congress will finally take notice and do something serious about patent reform.
What's the worst that can happen here? Google can no longer distribute or license WebM video/codecs/players, and everyone goes back to using H.264 (and soon, H.265)?
Isn't that how things already are? So, the "havoc" is that things are the same???
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad but apparently true. Microsoftie Steven Elop took over the reins at Nokia a couple of years ago, abandoned their Linux plans and other OSs, and declared that the company would stake its future on Windows Phone. Which Nokia now makes, not that it's a big hit. So the struggling company will happily swim in Microsoft's spit as it hopes to rely on them for a lifeline.
It won't work in the long term either. Microsoft has no strategic partners, only strategic victims.
Re: (Score:2)
And which of these do you believe enjoys the relationship?
Before you answer too quickly, ponder which ones would continue selling Windows exclusively if there was a viable mainstream alternative? They tolerate the conditions imposed upon them because they feel they must, not because they feel like "partners".
Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc (Score:4, Informative)
Since you said it:
Dell just went private because they have LOST so much share they didn't want to stay public. Looks like it was Mike that was paying back the stockholders,.. Not Steve, ouch.
Lenovo, IBM outsourced PC maker that IBM finally just gave up trying to make money on.
HP has bought Compaq and several other brands trying to stay solvent making PCs and gone through how many CEOs?
Lastly, Samsung and Acer are only on the game because they WERE the CHEAP LABOR 10 years ago, and now as OEMs they had enough parts and/or assembly tied up to bring their own brand when the First String players all went under. They are bodies and screwdrivers, nothing more.
Of this whole list only two companies (HP & Dell) have ever had any input at all into WRITING SOFTWARE that is important enough to Microsoft Windows to make the copyright blurb. The rest of the parties build boxes and put its good enough effort into making the machines boot up properly.. Microsoft or chipmakers do all the rest. Only Dell and HP were ever vaguely "partners" the rest were BENEATH MS customer status a very long time they built boxes.
A change of business model for Nokia? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A change of business model for Nokia? (Score:4, Informative)
"What Nokia is doing here is simply the normal course of business if a patent holder (Nokia) does not share the vision of another company (Google) with respect to a proposed standard and reserves all rights. What motivation could Nokia possibly have to donate something to a Google initiative? None. No motivation, no obligation, no license. Simple as that"
quoted from http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/setback-for-googles-vp8-nokia-refuses.html
Hey Florian! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could collect license fees on what looks to be the big new video format. They have plenty of motivation, so I can only assume there is some reason they want to scupper it.
Re: (Score:2)
They could collect license fees on what looks to be the big new video format.
That's amazingly lolworthy. WebM "looks to be the big new video format"? It's significantly worse than H.264, while H.265 (which raises the bar) is right around the corner!
They have plenty of motivation, so I can only assume there is some reason they want to scupper it.
Yes, money. And a sense of ownership (it's their patents, after all). And probably at least a bit of just wanting to fuck with Google for kicks.
Re: (Score:3)
... But probably mostly because their lawyers want more money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A change of business model for Nokia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: Where MS has been "going under" since 1997!
Though to be fair, MS has been on the decline lately, with a series of notable misses. Sadly, those misses have nothing to do with the Slashdot logic used to herald the end of MS.
Re:A change of business model for Nokia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could be quite bad if they do. Nokia's set of patents is a lot larger than SCO's was, and covers more recent things.
Re:A change of business model for Nokia? (Score:4, Informative)
Wikipedia agrees with this. [wikipedia.org]
From the previously linked article:
SCO has not claimed patent infringement, as according to the US Patent and Trademark Office database, no AT&T or Novell patent was ever assigned to SCO.
If you are aware of SCO owned patents, please do tell.
Re:A change of business model for Nokia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Renaming the invisible product doesn't make it any less of a bullshit argument.
Re: (Score:3)
And calling them both "invisible" doesn't make them the same, nor does it make them bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Apple has just sold more iPhones than ever, the iPhone 5 is currently the top selling smart phone, the iPhone 4S is in second place, and the iPhone 4 is in third. Apple has just had their most profitable quarter ever (and the second most profitable quarter of any public company in history).
So, yeah, clearly selling phones hasn't worked out for Apple at all...
A patent on tethering? (Score:5, Interesting)
So Nokia apparently has some trash "routing data from one network to another ON A MOBILE DEVICE" patent, and Florian Mueller is breathless about it. What's new?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not. A patent that is effectively "Routing data from one network to another through a device specifically designed to transfer data" should not be granted in the first place.
Not possible! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Not possible! (Score:2, Insightful)
Google said that Google Wave is the future of email.
Yeah. Right.
WARNING - Shill is the main information source (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see any way paying Florian Muller more than ten dollars a year makes any sense for their interests.
Re:WARNING - Shill is the main information source (Score:4, Funny)
Florian, you forgot to log in.
It's official (Score:3)
SCOkia is going belly up!
Jesus! (Score:3, Insightful)
Enough of this shit. You want to know what hurts innovation? Shit like this. No one knows what petty (or even not petty) patents they're going to infringe upon if they try to make anything, so they just don't bother.
Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:2)
Surely with VP8 being around for about 5 years now iirc any pending patents must have been lodges after VP8?
Can Nokia expect to win when the software they are trying to shut down with patents is usable as prior art to invalidate the same patents?
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nokia has been in phone business and phone related software business since the start. One could argue that they started the business in the first place and would be at least partially right.
They most definitely hold at least some patents that came to be before google was formed. And a whole lot more from time after google was formed but before it purchased android.
The problem is how they are choosing to use them. Normally you'd just negociate a licensing agreement and be done with it. But here, they're actually patent trolling. "We don't share the vision and do not want to help". So we sue to block. Ouch.
That's not the way nokia of old got to be on top. Elop and his microsoftism shines through.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think at this point, we can all look back on their history and realize that patents suck. Their concept was noble... protect the new inventor from having his invention stolen by a large corporation. But in practice, that happens anyway. Whomever has the most money for lawyers wins. The inventor of something is completely irrelevant at this point. Patents are nothing more than a legal artifice used by corporations to siphon money from one another. So lets just give it up, drop patent law and see how it goes. It can't be any worse than what we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the modern "intellectual property" related legislation sucks at this point for one simple reason: it went from "give creative people more incentive to be creative" to "how can big conglomerates maximize profits by exploiting both authors and consumers as much as possible".
Because authors and artists get screwed under modern legislation almost as badly as consumers do.
Re: (Score:3)
Nokia is not a patent troll by any reasonable definition. They are a practicing entity who developed their own technology and has been in this from the beginning.
Patent trolls rarely sue to block. As non-practicing entities there would be no commercial reason for that sort of behavior.
This is going to be a mess unless Google just buys Nokia.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nokia is not a patent troll by any reasonable definition.
This was certainly true for a long part of the Nokia history. But the actual Nokia is something that have lost an extremely large amount of connections with the Nokia "mobile phone world leader" of the past. We are now forced to take notice that the actual Nokia is more and more close to the definition of patent troll. The latest new just confirm this trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia is still a major cell phone company. While they missed the boat with their smartphones, they still have large market share in other areas.
Nokia is actually 2nd to only Samsung in total phone sales, and has a world wide market share of 20%.
The idea they are a patent troll is completely and 100% absurd.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Methinks both the eric conspiracy and jcdr are correct in their assertions. Nokia of late, under Elop is has both business models in use at the moment: selling phones to the developing world *and* patent trolling.
This btw is the same guy that sold the Nokia headquarters building, while agreeing to lease it back long-term.
He closed several factories in Europe, sending production (and build-quality) to Asia.
He's has and is paid many millions, although he's only been with the company just a few years. Coincidentally he came from Microsoft with millions of MS shares in the bank. He's Ballmer's Tool.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea they are a patent troll is completely and 100% absurd.
If you listen to a large amount of comments about Nokia this last two years, you will probably notice a dramatic increase of opinions that there is a lot of absurdities in the actual Nokia. The most absurd one is still that Nokia blindly ignore this reality...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VP8 is evolved from TrueMotion S, released in 1990. So 22 years, not 5. Google acquired its developer ON2 in 2010.
Do you mean to say nothing was done on VP8 since 1990 that could possibly infringe any patent Nokia has? Is Google trying to feed us a 23 years old technology to revolutionize youtube?
Re: (Score:2)
The 'evolved' part is sure to matter. There must be a lot of new techniques added. Even if there weren't, I expect many of those patents are of the 'X, but on a mobile device' form. Not the strongest of patents, but throw enough of them into court and a few are going to survive challenge just on luck alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see I looked at the one patent filed in my country. Patent filed at 2001, granted in 2011, valid to 2021.
What I hate the most is these hidden patents which are first filed, but they delay it for as long as possible (so they also remain hidden) and 10 years (!) later they get granted and are valid an other 10 years.
VP7 is from 2005, VP6 is from 2003, VP5 is from 2002. All based on TrueMotion S created in 1995 or so.
Took them long enough. (Score:2)
4.5 years after VP8 was released.
3 years after VP8 was made open source and freely available
"anonymous reader"... sure. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone please change the "anonymous reader writes" to "The paid shill Florian Mueller? Thanks.
The tethering patent is about to expire (Score:2)
...if it hasn't already (in the US) Assuming it's a valid patent to begin with. 1995 was a long time ago.
Real Patent Reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow! Back in 1999 after I purchased my first cellphone, one of the first things I did was to investigate how to connect it to my laptop to give me a mobile modem. Sure enough there was serial cable I could buy for it.
I don't care how early Nokia was to enter the mobile phone market. There is no way they should be able to patent any part this process. I'd rather have no patents at all than grant a 20 year monopoly to some company for tacking "on a mobile device" to some obvious idea like tethering.
We need real patent reform like:
* Eliminating Software patents
* Fix the "obviousness test" and throw out all the existing ones that fail to meet this standard.
* No patents granted to logical evolution of current technology like tethering
* Grant a theoretical patent (i.e. where invention has not yet been realized) for no more than 7 years
* Allow a patent extension/modification upon successful invention
* Mechanical and physics-technology patents should last no more than 15 years
A scathing analysis of VP8 came out 3 years ago (Score:2)
A blog post from "Diary of an X.264 developer" http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 [multimedia.cx] looked at VP8 and noted a number of probable infringements. The killer argument, though, was this:
Nokia declares war on the internet (Score:2)
Personally, saddened... (Score:2)
Submarine patents -- disgusting! (Score:5, Insightful)
Country:US:Filing date:19.01.2001, Filing number:09/766035, Pub.number:20010017944, Grant number:NA
It's disgusting they have patents filed in 2001 that are still pending that means they have will have a monopoly on that particular invention until abotu 2030, due to a loophole in the patent law that states that if the patent takes longer than 2 years to grant .. the time until the actual grant date doesn't count. This allows companies to extract royalties for 30 to even 40 years, especially if they had other patents that were granted for a particular type of technology.
The US Patent Office is to blame for this mess!!!
Go back to making crappy boots (Score:2)
Seriously, other than a few models Nokia phones have been patently awful. Every project Noka has bought out has ended up turning to absolute crap. They make awful alliances with awful companies. Now pulling tricks with vague algorithm patents? Fucking die Nokia. On and your boots suck too. Just spare us and give up on everything.
Re:Who is behind these Finns? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft. Basically, when Elop took over, Nokia became an MS Vassal. That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone, and why Windows Phone ads use Nokia phones. It's basically the same play they ran when they got SGI to start building NT workstations. And, not that far off from the investments in SCO to enable the fight against Linux. Note that the MS Vassal is actively using their patent portfolio specifically to fight one of Google's strategic plays, despite the fact that a phone vendor that has given up on OS development would probably do much better if they added Android to their phone portfolio.
Re: (Score:2)
That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS
Gosh how hate for Microsoft makes you say stupid things. Or did you actually prefer Symbian?
and their internal modern OS development projects
I worked on those projects and believe me, a credible alternative from Microsoft wasn't the biggest of their problems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone
When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS - Android had already dethroned Symbian when Nokia switched to Windows Phone.
No. Android was not even close to Symbian at that time.
As for MeeGo - would it have taken off? Maybe, but probably not. And the hardware it launched with was decidedly not modern at the time, which was perhaps a reason Nokia killed it. If they couldn't keep up with SoC developments, they would never manage to catch up to the competition.
Meego hat much better changes than Windows Phone (which did not take off and still does not sell anywhere close to what Symbian was selling in the past
in a much smaller market.). What ever you are mumbling here about SoC development does not make any sense considering that Linux supports much more
hardware than Windows Phone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are kidding right? The Maemo / Meego N900 and N97 received great reviews by people who actually used them.
Pity there was fuck all advertising and then Elop came along.
Re: (Score:2)
You are kidding right? The Maemo / Meego N900 and N97 received great reviews by people who actually used them.
You seem to be confusing N9 with N97; funny, because the latter was perhaps Nokia's lowest fall.
Yes, the several hundred thousand Linux enthusiasts gave the devices great reviews. There were not-so-great reviews too, but our memory is selective... Now Lumia phones receive great reviews too.
Re: (Score:3)
When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS
That depends on when you count the dumping. Nokia had a problem that they had an OS kernel (EXA2) that was beautifully designed for mobile devices, but had a userland that was somewhat archaic and designed to work around hardware limitations that didn't really exist anymore. Their solution was to throw away the kernel and replace it with Linux. They'd already begun relegating Symbian to the low end before Android was released. They had multiple strategies internally, none of which was working and all of
Re:Who is behind these Finns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nokia is now, by all extents, a Microsoft proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
The shareholders (Score:2)
Basically, the company is obliged by its shareholders to make money in any legal way. Milking the patent system is one such way. The answer is to fix the system.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. SCO was suing IBM for things they never did and if any did them Caldera (SCO) did them. Their filings were filled with lies.
Nokia at least invented the stuff they are suing for. Bad yes, but they are not in SCO's league.
Re: (Score:2)
Method to display a video... ON A PHONE!
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia's 87 steps to recover their position as #1 phone company in the world.
Re:Nokia = Microsoft, VP8 = H264 knock-off (Score:5, Informative)
I know I am not supposed to feed it, but just in case...
Second, When MPEG LA first announced the VP8 pool formation, a rush of companies applied to be in the pool, partly because everyone wanted to see what everyone else had. That gave way to some amount of disappointment. And by 'some amount' I mean 'rather a lot really, more than the MPEG-LA would care to admit.'
Eventually, things whittled down to a few holdouts. Those '11 patent holders' do not assert they have patents that cover the spec. They said '_may_ cover'. The press release itself repeats this. Then these patent holders said 'and we're willing to make that vague threat go away for a little cash'. Google paid the cash. This is what lawyers do.
That's why it's a huge newsworthy deal when companies like NewEgg actually take the more expensive out and litigate a patent. It is always more expensive than settling, even if you'd win the case, and very few companies are willing or able to do it. Google was probably able, but not willing.
As for the quality stuff, WebM is close enough that it doesn't matter [compression.ru]. We could argue details of that point, but the real reason Google is doing this is because the use cases for a web-centric codec are VERY different than the use cases for Hollywood and broadcast media. For example, web programmers don't care about encoding speed, we care about battery usage on cell-phones.
Re: (Score:2)
VP8 still has room for a lot of improvement at the encoder. It took many years to get x264 to the world-class piece of software it is today, and VP8 has yet to catch up. The standard may be as good at h264 in quality/bitrate potential, but what can really be achieved is limited by the encoder.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how the fact that VP8, when trying as hard as it can, just about manages to match h.264 in high-speed mode means it is "close enough that it doesn't matter".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If HTC goes Windows they are dead. Today the market for Windows phones is small, the amount of apps low compared to Android and iPhone, so no thanks Windows.
I would say that the majority of patent cases like these are actually not valid and the only reason why they exist is that the courts are incompetent.
The fact that they pursue this is more a sign that Nokia is dying, and their connection to Microsoft doesn't help. The patents they refer to are either obvious or there are prior art.
Just go ahead and dig
Re: (Score:2)
If HTC goes Windows they are dead. Today the market for Windows phones is small, the amount of apps low compared to Android and iPhone, so no thanks Windows.
Bullshit: Only Nokia is stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket say "We only make Windows phones and nothing else and that's smart because we say so.". HTC makes Windows Phones. Samsung makes Windows Phones. But you don't see them because HTC and Samsung also make Android phones and they make a lot more of them and they sell a lot more of them. IF Windows Phone 8 becomes a "hit" / popular then you'll instantly see everyone making Android also becoming Windows Phone makers. If HTC were to be equall
Re: (Score:3)
Don't kid yourself. That yacht is the form of the insanity that his anti-cancer and anti-boredom drugs caused. Ugly as sin.